CT's SOS Bysiewicz: “Optical Scanners Were Remarkably Accurate” -Toothless Summary Contradicts Claim

[Wilms]

When is an audit not an audit? When it's handled like this one was in CT. The ASA is right. We need audit laws with TEETH! Bysiewicz' administration of the audit and especially the illogical conclusion drawn from it show why laws that COMPEL election officials to conduct risk-limiting audits are being called for.


Now, I realize Bysiewicz is busy running as an arguably unqualified candidate for state Attorney General. It's also plain to see her remarks on the voting system audit require qualifications she not been forthright with.

And she's not the only one. Have a look at the DETAILS of the audits on the books around the nation. Gums. No teeth. Hence the ASA's comment.

But I digress.

Bysiewicz: “Optical Scanners Were Remarkably Accurate”

By Luther Weeks on April 28, 2010

Press Release: BYSIEWICZ RELEASES FINAL REPORTS ON INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF NOVEMBER 2009 MUNICIPAL ELECTION RESULTS AND MEMORY CARDS

snip

Unlike Secretary Bysiewicz: We do NOT agree that phoning election officials and getting them to agree that they counted inaccurately provides much confidence in the audit, least of all proof that the machines counted accurately. Nor does disregarding incomplete reports create credibility.

See our comments on the UConn Report:

We have several concerns with these investigations:

1. All counting and review of ballots should be transparent and open to public observation. Both this year and last year we have asked that such counting be open and publicly announced in advance.
2. Simply accepting the word of election officials that they counted inaccurately is hardly reliable, scientific, or likely to instill trust in the integrity of elections. How do we know how accurate the machines are without a complete audit, any error or fraud would likely result in a count difference, and would be very likely dismissed.
3. Even if, in every cases officials are correct that they did not count accurately, it cannot be assumed that the associated machines counted accurately.
4. Simply ignoring the initial results in the analysis of the data provides a simple formula to cover-up, or not recognize error and fraud in the future.

http://www.ctvoterscount.org/?p=3101#counting

snip

We also question if audit would pass muster as “Independent” since all the counting is supervised by the same officials responsible for the conduct of the election in the first place. Only the statistical analysis might be considered independent, being performed by UConn.

We will find it remarkable if anyone disagrees with our conclusions.

http://www.ctvoterscount.org/?p=3135

[Stevepol]

1. This is the universal situation in the US right now:

counting of votes is done, not just by the University of Con but also by the University of Dumb.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

2. optical scan, for whiter than white teeth

and brighter smiles.

[Wilms]

3. Ya mean false teeth. Right?

:evilgrin:

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

4. Luther's CT VotersCount blog is 1 of my favorites

if not THE favorite.

I always wonder what he'll say next about CT issues or national.